Calpol
Established Member
Ok, obviously it has, but today I noticed on my 600mm square it says to use safety glasses...?
:-s
:-s
Has Health & Safety Gone Mad?
- Thread starter Calpol
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Philly
Established Member
Well you wouldn't want it to jump into your eye......... :wink:
Philly :lol:
Philly :lol:
Smudger
Established Member
Except that isn't true...
andycktm
Established Member
Good enough for me................. :lol: :lol:
Jamesc
Established Member
Aaargh,
Sorry but this is my pet hate of having health and safety blamed for everything. Your sticker is absolutely nothing to do with health and safety.
It has everything to do with Lawyers and companies not wishing to be sued. If you want to blame someone blame the Americans for their suing culture and these no-win no-fee leeches who capitalize on it.
Phew! Rant over
James
Sorry but this is my pet hate of having health and safety blamed for everything. Your sticker is absolutely nothing to do with health and safety.
It has everything to do with Lawyers and companies not wishing to be sued. If you want to blame someone blame the Americans for their suing culture and these no-win no-fee leeches who capitalize on it.
Phew! Rant over
James
True! But unfortunately the excuse is always H and S. Even the poor old head of the HSE has complained about the frequent blaming of the H and S acts.
Previously the blame was always 'The Computer!'
It's still bloody ugly IMO though.
Roy.
Previously the blame was always 'The Computer!'
It's still bloody ugly IMO though.
Roy.
RogerS
Established Member
Jamesc":ezc8hi9f said:
Not quite. The blame should be placed firmly at home when DuffGov introduced the Access to Justice Act 1999 - thus maintaining their 100% record of introducing ill-thought through and poorly conceived Acts each of which has had unforeseen consequences (that actually were foreseeable to anyone with an ounce of commonsense). [/rant]
BigShot
Established Member
Tree = BUTT ugly.
Safety sticker on square = funny.
(Funny like the allergy warning on packets of nuts "contains nuts" - NO ****!)
Roger - DuffGov's record isn't quite 100%. The Freedom of Information Act is a cracker. Right now I have a hard time finding anything else to disagree on though. I'd say CRoW too, but that's pathetic and not at all Scottish enough.
24 hour licensing is a bloody fantastic idea.
The government really has no business telling adults when they can and can't drink. So some people drink themselves into a state where they end up comatose on the way home in a pool of their own vomit and bodily fluids... that's their problem.
Apart from the liberty aspect... The gem of 24 hour licencing is there's no longer that flood of thousands of people into city centres with the Alpha Males of various baboon-like packs fighting over everything from women to kebabs and taxis. Sure there's still violence, but on the streets in Manchester I've noticed a clear difference in atmosphere at about 11pm and again at 2am.
The few idiots who act like they ALWAYS act regardless of time limits should not be allowed to ruin it for the rest of us who DON'T act like idiots no matter how much we drink (and I drink very little - I just prefer not to have some stuffed-suit in London telling me when I can and can't go out for one).
Safety sticker on square = funny.
(Funny like the allergy warning on packets of nuts "contains nuts" - NO ****!)
Roger - DuffGov's record isn't quite 100%. The Freedom of Information Act is a cracker. Right now I have a hard time finding anything else to disagree on though. I'd say CRoW too, but that's pathetic and not at all Scottish enough.
24 hour licensing is a bloody fantastic idea.
The government really has no business telling adults when they can and can't drink. So some people drink themselves into a state where they end up comatose on the way home in a pool of their own vomit and bodily fluids... that's their problem.
Apart from the liberty aspect... The gem of 24 hour licencing is there's no longer that flood of thousands of people into city centres with the Alpha Males of various baboon-like packs fighting over everything from women to kebabs and taxis. Sure there's still violence, but on the streets in Manchester I've noticed a clear difference in atmosphere at about 11pm and again at 2am.
The few idiots who act like they ALWAYS act regardless of time limits should not be allowed to ruin it for the rest of us who DON'T act like idiots no matter how much we drink (and I drink very little - I just prefer not to have some stuffed-suit in London telling me when I can and can't go out for one).
studders
Established Member
Until of course you/I have need to visit the local Hospital on a Friday/Saturday/Sunday evening. Then you can expect a very long wait whilst the above mentioned morons are treated, at considerable cost to all of us. The rest of the week being taken up by smackheads, also at considerable cost.BigShot":2m5awpqd said:
Here endeth the Rant.
BigShot
Established Member
Studders - couldn't agree more.
Times have been where I've hurt myself doing something stupid (I'm into daft sports like mountain biking, snowboarding and the likes) on a Friday or Saturday evening and elected to wait until the following morning to avoid the long wait in A&E... that was BEFORE 24hr licensing though.
That said, the problem there is our failure of a "free" health care system... not so much of letting people make their own choices like the responsible (at least in the legal sense of the word) adults they are.
Not one single over-drinking ***** negates MY ability to drink responsibly (and I assume yours and that of most people you and I know too) though - and there's no way laws should be made to respond idiots when all that law will really do is affect the rest of us.
Digit
Your first link talks a lot about underage drinking. I wonder how much that increase is down to increases in underage drinking as opposed to the 24-hour thing... though the 2nd link seems to suggest it's not going to be the whole increase.
Maybe pressure on parents to refuse their kids alcohol at home (I believe making it an "adult" thing only makes it more desirable and refusing it at home - in moderation and with responsibility introduced from the word go - forces it into parks and unsupervised house-parties) is playing a part there though.
The second link - my response to that will sound INCREDIBLY harsh but having the liberal views I have means accepting that.
So what?
If someone is daft enough to drink so heavily that they die young that is entirely their own fault. Not yours, not mine and not the government's.
I take part in "extreme" sports with an increased death rate over more traditional ones... also full-contact sports with risk of things like brain damage and death... should I be stopped for my own protection? Not a CHANCE!
The government has no right to stop me doing things for my own good - I'll make those choices for myself and so should everyone else.
The exact same applies to drinking. You make life choices that affect you. The way you eat, the activities you do and the amount of alcohol you consume are all factors in the illnesses you get and, for some, in their premature deaths. There should be no legislation to deny those choices to the individual.
I do wonder how many of these deaths are caused not by 24 hour licensing (especially considering the huge downturn in the on-trade) but by people who previously drunk in pubs being priced out by tax increases (and the recession) so drinking at home - and more regularly due to having a constant supply at home where before they may only drink at their local - leading to a greater consumption of alcohol at problem levels.
As for the third link - interesting to read. Note that some forces (Cheshire mentioned by name) showed an overall drop in alcohol related crime.
What the Police report does not make clear, not in that article at least, is just what kinds of violence were taking place.
No mention of taxi rank fights, no mention of kebab shop fights. Plenty of mention of "anti-social behaviour" and the likes. Very hard to draw conclusions form just that information.
Interesting to hear the comments from the study done by statisticians rather than coppers (no slur on coppers there, mind).
I should point out here that I'm not trying to toe a governmental line here - far from it in fact - I don't care much for ANY of the political parties, particularly the bunch of useless <expletive> in power right now. About the only one I find even vaguely interesting (or desirable) are the relatively new Libertarian Party.
I'd be quite happy if they'd all just bugger off and leave us to it reducing their activities to things like law enforcement, prisons, defence and the likes.
Anyway - thanks for the links, Roy, interesting reading for sure. I'm not so sure it makes any kind of case against 24 hour licensing though (especially since in reality very few places stay open for more than a couple of extra hours).
Times have been where I've hurt myself doing something stupid (I'm into daft sports like mountain biking, snowboarding and the likes) on a Friday or Saturday evening and elected to wait until the following morning to avoid the long wait in A&E... that was BEFORE 24hr licensing though.
That said, the problem there is our failure of a "free" health care system... not so much of letting people make their own choices like the responsible (at least in the legal sense of the word) adults they are.
Not one single over-drinking ***** negates MY ability to drink responsibly (and I assume yours and that of most people you and I know too) though - and there's no way laws should be made to respond idiots when all that law will really do is affect the rest of us.
Digit
Your first link talks a lot about underage drinking. I wonder how much that increase is down to increases in underage drinking as opposed to the 24-hour thing... though the 2nd link seems to suggest it's not going to be the whole increase.
Maybe pressure on parents to refuse their kids alcohol at home (I believe making it an "adult" thing only makes it more desirable and refusing it at home - in moderation and with responsibility introduced from the word go - forces it into parks and unsupervised house-parties) is playing a part there though.
The second link - my response to that will sound INCREDIBLY harsh but having the liberal views I have means accepting that.
So what?
If someone is daft enough to drink so heavily that they die young that is entirely their own fault. Not yours, not mine and not the government's.
I take part in "extreme" sports with an increased death rate over more traditional ones... also full-contact sports with risk of things like brain damage and death... should I be stopped for my own protection? Not a CHANCE!
The government has no right to stop me doing things for my own good - I'll make those choices for myself and so should everyone else.
The exact same applies to drinking. You make life choices that affect you. The way you eat, the activities you do and the amount of alcohol you consume are all factors in the illnesses you get and, for some, in their premature deaths. There should be no legislation to deny those choices to the individual.
I do wonder how many of these deaths are caused not by 24 hour licensing (especially considering the huge downturn in the on-trade) but by people who previously drunk in pubs being priced out by tax increases (and the recession) so drinking at home - and more regularly due to having a constant supply at home where before they may only drink at their local - leading to a greater consumption of alcohol at problem levels.
As for the third link - interesting to read. Note that some forces (Cheshire mentioned by name) showed an overall drop in alcohol related crime.
What the Police report does not make clear, not in that article at least, is just what kinds of violence were taking place.
No mention of taxi rank fights, no mention of kebab shop fights. Plenty of mention of "anti-social behaviour" and the likes. Very hard to draw conclusions form just that information.
Interesting to hear the comments from the study done by statisticians rather than coppers (no slur on coppers there, mind).
I should point out here that I'm not trying to toe a governmental line here - far from it in fact - I don't care much for ANY of the political parties, particularly the bunch of useless <expletive> in power right now. About the only one I find even vaguely interesting (or desirable) are the relatively new Libertarian Party.
I'd be quite happy if they'd all just bugger off and leave us to it reducing their activities to things like law enforcement, prisons, defence and the likes.
Anyway - thanks for the links, Roy, interesting reading for sure. I'm not so sure it makes any kind of case against 24 hour licensing though (especially since in reality very few places stay open for more than a couple of extra hours).
RogerS
Established Member
bigshot...I can't quite see the difference in terms of unnecessary demands on the NHS between a kid drinking him/herself to oblivion and then getting hurt or injured and people who take part in "extreme" sports and getting injured.
BigShot
Established Member
I'm not so sure there is a difference. Not in terms of cost to the NHS that is.
(The actual cost is significantly different, but the principle is the same, I think)
That's what I was getting at though; and I don't think either should be legislated against.
Going further... drop the "extreme" bit. How about a kid playing rugby getting a blown knee? How about a footballer tearing their hamstring? How about a walker turning an ankle? How about an adult not brushing their teeth and needing thousands in dental treatment?
Why should anyone else have to pay for the fall out from their bad choices?
As I said previously though, it's a problem with our health care system - not with the liberty to make your own choices about sports, drinking and so on.
There's something wrong when one person makes a stupid decision and everyone else has to pay to pick up the pieces.
When I go snowboarding I have insurance to cover injury (evacuation from the mountain, x-rays, surgery, treatment, rehabilitation and so on) and the cost to the rest of society is NIL. My fault, my responsibility.
If I don't have insurance I still have to pay - it just costs me between and 6 figures instead of 2 or 3. Again, my choice, my responsibility - and responsibility that should not be thrust on anyone else.
As it stands I'm forced to pay for the NHS so I'll use that cover while I'm in the UK and hang the cost - I've already paid for my cover! I don't think I should be forced though. Nor should anyone else.
I don't see why drinking and related illnesses should be any different.
That's no reason to stop 24 hour licensing (which again, I don't accept is the cause of these issues) and every reason to re-think the way medical treatment is paid for.
(The actual cost is significantly different, but the principle is the same, I think)
That's what I was getting at though; and I don't think either should be legislated against.
Going further... drop the "extreme" bit. How about a kid playing rugby getting a blown knee? How about a footballer tearing their hamstring? How about a walker turning an ankle? How about an adult not brushing their teeth and needing thousands in dental treatment?
Why should anyone else have to pay for the fall out from their bad choices?
As I said previously though, it's a problem with our health care system - not with the liberty to make your own choices about sports, drinking and so on.
There's something wrong when one person makes a stupid decision and everyone else has to pay to pick up the pieces.
When I go snowboarding I have insurance to cover injury (evacuation from the mountain, x-rays, surgery, treatment, rehabilitation and so on) and the cost to the rest of society is NIL. My fault, my responsibility.
If I don't have insurance I still have to pay - it just costs me between and 6 figures instead of 2 or 3. Again, my choice, my responsibility - and responsibility that should not be thrust on anyone else.
As it stands I'm forced to pay for the NHS so I'll use that cover while I'm in the UK and hang the cost - I've already paid for my cover! I don't think I should be forced though. Nor should anyone else.
I don't see why drinking and related illnesses should be any different.
That's no reason to stop 24 hour licensing (which again, I don't accept is the cause of these issues) and every reason to re-think the way medical treatment is paid for.
Quite a lot I suspect.
Frankly I believe that these people should pay the medical costs, if they can afford to drink the quantities they boast of they should be able to afford insurance.
To me, at least, there is a difference between a snow boarding accident, for example, and deliberately getting so drunk that you need hospital attention. Also paying for police time might sober some of them.
Roy.
BigShot
Established Member
Roy
To be quite honest I do believe there's a massive difference between drinking yourself into medical care and an accident on a snowboard - the reason I say there's no difference is in that they both (under this system) cost everyone else money when a person's choices bite them on the backside.
Paying for police time is a good point. A token fine means nothing - the cost of 3 or more hours of working time for 4 or 5 police officers would be a more fitting punishment.
That or birching.
To be quite honest I do believe there's a massive difference between drinking yourself into medical care and an accident on a snowboard - the reason I say there's no difference is in that they both (under this system) cost everyone else money when a person's choices bite them on the backside.
Paying for police time is a good point. A token fine means nothing - the cost of 3 or more hours of working time for 4 or 5 police officers would be a more fitting punishment.
That or birching.
BMac
Established Member
Just on the alcohol abuse issue. At Christmas a couple of years ago a hospital in Dublin erected a heated 'tent' to admit drunks the Gardai brought in and others who arrived worse for wear. The tent had a doctor and nurse to observe the patients overnight and, next morning, they were charged something like 200 Euros for their stay.
Last year a couple of other hospitals did the same.
Maybe Boysie can fill can confirm or amend any details for me that I might be wrong on.
Brendan
Last year a couple of other hospitals did the same.
Maybe Boysie can fill can confirm or amend any details for me that I might be wrong on.
Brendan
Similar threads
Withdrawn
Withdrawn JTech-Laser 2.8w
